Court: Crooks facing deportation allowed to stay so they can claim full legal aid

Court: Crooks facing deportation allowed to stay so they can claim full legal aid

A PAIR of druggie villains set to be kicked out of Britain under Theresa May's tough 'deport-now-appeal-later' rules have been told they can stay - because if they were sent home they wouldn't get legal aid paid for by the UK tax-payer.

The breath-taking court ruling massively undermines the Government's deportation legislation and threatens to make the UK a permanent safe haven for the world's killers, rapists, drug-dealers and other assorted scum.

Under the Home Secretary's new rules offenders from abroad were likely to be deported PRIOR to launching a judicial review.

However, a court has ruled that two prisoners can launch appeals against the new crackdown on foreign criminals while remaining in Britain.

The decision means some of the most dangerous prisoners from around the world who are serving sentences in the UK could avoid deportation.

The challenges are being brought by Kevin Kinyanjui Kiarie, a Kenyan who came to the UK as a young child in 1997, and Courtney Aloysius Byndloss, a Jamaican father of at least seven children born in the UK.

Klairie was convicted of driving while uninsured, resisting or obstructing a police constable and possession of heroin, cocaine, crack cocaine and cannabis.

It is clearly important that the court considers these recently-introduced provisions which make a significant difference to the way in which the secretary of state is able to deal with cases of deportation of foreign criminals

Lord Justice Underhill

Byndloss was jailed for three years for possessing class A drugs with intent to supply and was deemed to have played "a significant role" in the drugs trade.

Both had been told they must conduct their battles against removal respectively from Kenya and Jamaica.

But they claim the Home Secretary's powers to order out-of-country appeals violate their human rights on several grounds.

These include the disruption caused to family life and the harm a deportee's removal, even if only temporary, could cause to his children.

Staggeringly, their lawyers successfully argued that the men wouldn't have access to taxpayer-funded legal aid or good enough internet to appear in court via video link.

At London's Court of Appeal Lord Justice Underhill said: "It is clearly important that the court considers these recently-introduced provisions which make a significant difference to the way in which the secretary of state is able to deal with cases of deportation of foreign criminals."

Any decision could pave the way for thousands of foreign-born offenders to remain in the UK indefinitely, the judge added.

Other similar cases are "in the pipeline", Lord Justice Underhill said, and there had to be "an authoritative and early decision of this court for the guidance and tribunals who have to evaluate these provisions in the future".

Figures released by the Home Office show that more than 1,000 people have been removed under the tough new provisions since they came into force last year.

Human rights campaign group Liberty have blasted the new guidelines as "nasty" and "ill thought" through.

Bella Sankey, the organisation's director of policy, said: "How can politicians who weep hot tears at torture in countries like Syria seek to deport first and reflect later?"

Previously deportation cases carried an automatic right of appeal in the UK, which led to criticism that the legal system could be used to delay deportations for years, with applicants lodging a string of appeals and requests for judicial review in the British courts.